Who was really doing better journalism here with better sources? It looks like TMZ.com had an excellent source and they beat the pants off of more traditional organizations. I wonder why the LA Times didn't know what was going on sooner. Isn't that their territory? It looks to me like they got scooped in a big way.
The more we learn about what happened at Michael Jackson's home on the day of his untimely death, the more things seem to look better for TMZ.com, a Web site I criticized in an earlier posting.
A missing doctor, questions about prescription drugs, an investigation involving the Los Angeles Police Department's all suggest this story is just beginning.
Today's New York Times calls it a "Twitter-enhanced luminary spectacle"
Pete Cashmore on the Mashable Social Media Guide cited the tracking tool Twist, which reported at one point, about 30 percent of Tweets were remarking in Michael Jackson's passing.
The Tribune-owned newspaper addressed the initial Tweets in a separate posting on its Comments blog.
The Los Angeles Times reports the investigation now focuses on whether Jackson overdosed on prescription drugs as results of the initial autopsy were inconclusive.
If the overdose turns out to be the actual cause of death, it certainly places a different spin on the timing of the events of Thursday.
Looks Like I have company
It is interesting to note that I wasn't the only one who took note of the order of events in Thursday's media reporting.
Peter Kafka of The Wall Street Journal's "All Things Digital" site includes a more-detailed look at the same topic.
Gotta say-- I'm a Wall Street Journal print subscriber (In fact, my Saturday edition has already arrived in the tube outside) and until today I had never heard of Peter Kafka's Media Memo.
About those Facebook Status Updates
Likewise, another blogger, Zack Whittaker, also got into this same discussion as it relates to how much we believe in the Tweets on Twitter. He also include the status updates on Facebook in his discussion.
While I don't think much of those Facebook updates, we certainly can't ignore their role in the larger social networking arena.
The question still remains: to what extent can viewers rely on them in the time of breaking news?
Maybe, that's not as relevant to the discussion about the future of journalism as I am making it.
When people read those updates, they don't expect to get the same credible or reliable information they get from a trusted news source, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment